Somewhat -- OK, quite -- belatedly I came across the snippet of informaton that Steve Fuller has actually spoken out in defence of Intelligent Design. While I would expect little else from someone who propounds his particular version of a strong political SSK -- one where a bunch of technopols from management schools 'manage' science according to the dictates of todays political expediencies -- some part of me feels a small disappointment. Yes, I would have expected more, maybe not intellectual rigor, but at least courage.
Because Fuller's argument stinks. It pretty much starts with the belief that science itself it just a belief system and a practice, not unlike that of the church. With that step taken it is not so hard to develop the argument that science is about to become 'secularised', i.e. socially marginalised in a manner not dissimilar to the manner in which most churches have been socially marginalised in the last fifty years or so. It escapes me why Fuller should proceed to spend three booklength arguments in making this point, since it is quite trivial once one accepts its postmodern premise.
One could make the point perfectly well that consumerism has managed to secularise the church first, and is now doing the same to expensive science. The consumer is more interested in iPods than in Superconducting Supercolliders, and since a consumer mind is not bound to reason, it can ignore the (somewhat tenuous anyway) link between the two. The consumer has this decision outsourced anyway to a technopol somewhere busily 'picking winners'.
Where Fullers argument stinks (or becomes disingenious, in more polite language) is that it ignores that this secularisation of science is accompanied by a rise in the fortunes of the extreme christian right. From this perspective, it becomes somewhat frightening that the secularisation of science, so ardently assisted by Fuller in the name of critique of power and emancipation of the underdog, is accompanied by the rise not only popularity, but in some circles at least, also a partial belief in, millenial hate literature such as the 'Left Behind' series (see Joe Bageant's commentary "the whore that sitteth on many waters" for a commentary and analysis, or see this article about Claire Curtis to name just a few). This is the smell of those who argue for Intelligent Design. For 'Left Behind' (or crass consumerism) to florish, it is better if critical faculties are temporarily suspended.
It would of course be perfectly consistent for someone like Fuller to argue that political science should indeed be run along the tenets of 'Left Behind', just like he has now argued that Intelligent Design should be part of the accepted canon of Biology. Apart from the fact that this claim is rubbish -- Intelligent Design is a meta theory and not a theory -- Fuller's argument of the 'tent' of Biology in which Intelligent Design could have a 'democratic' place ignores two facts.
The first is that Intelligent Design has proven to be merely capable of pointing out a 'hole' in the Darwinian theory (one that in my opinion is not a hole at all), and is not capable of establising a positive research programme.
The second is that Intelligent Design in this setting is a Trojan Horse -- it is there to cast doubt, eventually release the soldiers inside and open the doors of the castle for those who will burn it down.
